Whose House is this Anyway? IDP and Refugee Return in Post-Saddam Iraq

Although many people displaced by Saddam's regime over the yearslooked forward to returning as soon as the 2003 war ended, anumber of problems emerged which continued to bedevil the returnprocess as late as one year after the war. These problems includedan unclear political future for the country, competing politicaland sectarian forces that often view IDPs and refugees as strategictools or weapons, a hesitant and initially undecided Coalitionpolicy on the return issue, unclear mandates for the variousactors that could assist with returns, lack of funding, andmost importantly of all, an extremely poor security situationwhich has impeded or even blocked all progress on the returnissue. Nonetheless, because Iraq's Ba'athist dictatorship wasthe overwhelming cause of displacement in the country to beginwith, the future does hold some hope for Iraqi displaced persons.This paper examines the causes of return problems in Iraq andhow various authorities in post-Ba'athist Iraq are addressingthe return issue. Particularly around the contested city ofKirkuk, problems relating to the return issue risk ignitingethnic conflict and possibly even civil war in Iraq as a whole.The article examines the return issue for the period from March2003 to June 2004, focusing especially on northern Iraq andKirkuk. The research presented here is based on fieldwork conductedin Iraq by the author between September 2003 and May 2004. Theauthor went to Iraq independently, with the assistance of aCanadian Department of National Defence post-doctoral researchgrant. Interviews were conducted with US and Coalition ProvisionalAuthority officials, Iraqi Interim Government officials, KurdistanRegional Government officials, NGO workers, and IDPs themselvesduring visits to camps around Kirkuk and Baghdad.     

DNA typing: an accessory evidence in doping control

A clear positive case for anabolic steroids doping was confounded by alleged urine tampering during doping control procedures. Review of the chain of custody showed no flaws, but nevertheless the athlete was adamant that the urine sample should be analyzed for DNA in order to support her contention that she was not the donor of the sample. The results obtained showed that the urine sample that scored positive for steroids contained nuclear DNA that could not be matched to the DNA obtained from the athlete's blood. On the other hand, the same urine sample contained mitochondrial DNA whose nucleotide sequences spanning the hyper variable regions HV1 and HV2 proved to be identical to those determined in mitochondrial DNA amplified from the athlete's blood. The occurrence of an extraneous genotype is compatible with exogenous nuclear DNA admixture to the athlete's urine. Alternatively, taking in consideration the mitochondrial DNA, we could not exclude that a sibling or a maternal relative of the athlete could have acted as a donor of the urine utilized for doping control and DNA analysis. Both situations point to possible tampering of the urine by the athlete. Adjudication at CAS maintained previous national and international federation decision that there was no proof of a chain of custody flaw to justify the athlete's allegation of urine substitution after collection.